Open main menu

Wiktionary β

Wiktionary:Information desk

Wiktionary > Discussion rooms > Information desk

You can search in the archives of Information desk:

Welcome to the Information desk of Wiktionary, a place where newcomers can ask questions about words and about Wiktionary, ask for help, or post miscellaneous ideas that don’t fit in any of the other rooms.

To start a new topic, clicking on the “+” tab, or click here: Start a new topic.

Sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~), code which produces your signature, followed by a UTC timestamp.

For past questions, see /Archives.


July 2017

AttestationEdit

If there is a text written in some language and containing direct speech in another language, can this be used for attestation in that other language? For example several High German texts contain Low German direct speech. Sometimes it might be some kind of Missingsch, neither High nor Low German, but sometimes it might be correct Low German.

  • Herr von Ribbeck auf Ribbeck im Havelland (Fontane) at wikisource
    This might attest Low German Dirn = girl, lütt = little, dod = dead.
  • 1905, Wilhelm Jensen, Unter der Tarnkappe. Ein schleswig-holsteinischer Roman. In: Westermanns Illustrierte Deutsche Monatshefte. XCVIII. Band, Heft 588. September 1905, p. 767 (GB):
    Sünd dat twee, de sick helpen wüllt, amo, amas, amamus to konjugeern? Dat latinsche Tidwort geiht se all jümmer an lichtesten in, to lehrn, uns' Herrgott gifft wul sülbn Ünnerricht dato.
    This might attest Low German konjugeern = conjugate, Tidwort = verb, Ünnerricht = instruction, lesson.
  • 1883, F. W. Grimme, De Kumpelmentenmaker oder Hai mott wierfriggen. Lustspiel in sauerländischer Mundart, Münster:
    Stage direction and some speeches are High German, but some characters could speak Low German.

-Ageaux (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It's complicated. On the one hand, Low German (which we treat as two languages: German Low German,language code nds-de, and Dutch Low Saxon, language code nds-nl) isn't what our Criteria for inclusion call a "Highly Documented Language" (HDL), so you only need a mention in a source that the community of editors in the language in question agree is reliable. On the other hand, this kind of source makes it very hard to be sure that you really have the right language. Characters in fiction tend to speak a stereotyped or even fake version of their supposed language which is often distorted for dramatic or comic purposes. Even if not deliberately tampered with, it may be the kind of phrases that "everybody knows those people say". For example, the interjection "Gott in Himmel" is rather well attested as something said in English texts by German characters- but I have my doubts about it being quite as well-attested in German texts... Chuck Entz (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Woah. This is eerily similar to the case of the Prakrit languages. A lot of Middle Indic drama used different languages to denote class in society, e.g. the poorest spoke Magadhi Prakrit, the powerful men spoke Maharashtri (I think) and the well off women spoke Shauraseni, while in religious texts Jains used Ardhamagadhi and Buddhists used Pali. There was a high enough degree of mutual intelligibility in these standardized dramatic dialects (as in they were artificially made to sound a certain way). As Chuck Entz said about "stereotyped ... or even fake" language, the usage of Low German in High German texts is probably to poke fun or give a character a certain identity in a drama. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

passifyEdit

Used on page 94 of David Foster Wallace "Every love story is a ghost story." What does it mean?

"“Westward” also represented how seriously Wallace had come to take fiction, how much he believed that in the wrong hands it could demoralize and passify the unwary." Apparently passive + -fy = to make passive. Equinox 00:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
SemperBlotto has created it as a misspelling of "pacify". I don't think that's what it means in the above. Equinox 11:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I've changed the definition and added some citations where the immediate context makes clear it means "make/become passive". - -sche (discuss) 18:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Appendix articleEdit

I wanted to create a page about Polish adverbs but my article was rejected. How can I add an article to Polish appendices? —This unsigned comment was added by Mihxal (talkcontribs).

What do you mean by rejected? DTLHS (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
There appeared a communication that it would be harmful or something like that and some other communications. It was automatically rejected. On the whole, I couldn't add it. Mihxal (talk)
Aha! You tried to create a main-namespace page called "polish adverbs", with interwikis, and an edit filter blocked your edit because interwikis are unneeded in the main namespace. If you want to create an appendix, it should be in the appendix space and at the correct capitalization, say Appendix:Polish adverbs. Appendix:English adverbs and Appendix:Swedish adverbs are examples of existing appendices about adverbs. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have already added it. Mihxal (talk)
@Mihxal: Very nice. I added {{m}} or {{l}} to make the Polish text be properly linked and language-tagged. — Eru·tuon 19:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

AcceleratedEdit

How can I enable this option in this article: https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Appendix:Polish_adverbs? https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Conrad.Irwin/creation.js/documentation Mihxal (talk)

Go to Preferences (it's on the top of the page, next to the Talk link). Click the Gadgets tab. Scroll down to the Editing gadgets section. Click Add accelerated creation links for common inflections of some words. Click Save on the bottom. This will enable green links for available accelerations. Polish adverbs already have this feature. However, I don't think it will work for an Appendix. --Panda10 (talk) 21:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@Panda10: Yes, it does not work. Is it possible to enable it in Appendix? Mihxal (talk)
The accelerated green links appear when you use the headword template {{pl-adv}} in the actual entry page. Why would you want to use acceleration in an appendix? Just go to the actual entry page and click on the green links to create the comparative and superlative forms. --Panda10 (talk) 15:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@panda10: To allow adding entries for words which appear in Appendix. After all, I could do everything manually but I would like to do it semi-automatically. ~Mihxal (talk)
@Mihxal: I'm sorry but I don't understand the problem. I just created the comparative form goręcej by going to the lemma entry gorąco and clicking on the green link then clicking save. --Panda10 (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Taishanese words with no written formEdit

Hi all. What is the best practice for w:Taishanese (or other applicable varieties of Chinese, for that matter) words that have no written form? An example would be /lai²² sai²²/ "dirty".

Also, what is the best practice for adding these words into their respective Template:zh-dial tables? Chagneling (talk) 06:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(@Wyang, Justinrleungsuzukaze (tc) 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC))
@Chagneling: It's hard to say. Even though the sources we have do not provide a written form, there may be one out there. In these cases, I usually do not create any entry until further investigation (since it fails to meet WT:CFI anyway, unless we make an exception for dialectal terms). For zh-dial tables, I usually put them as a comment at the end of the line for any dialect. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: Got it. Also, just to confirm:
* for the purposes of WT:CFI#Number_of_citations, do sources include dictionaries (whether physical or digital)?
* do I need to state sources on entries themselves, or are they already implied (e.g. Stephen Li for Taishanese)? It doesn't look like entries like 天早 list any directly. Chagneling (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If a language has a limited written corpus, dictionaries can be counted towards attestation (WT:LDL). DTLHS (talk) 16:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

HSK AppendixEdit

Hello! Currently on Wiktionary there is an appendix for HSK (Chinese proficiency test) vocabulary according to the old system: Appendix:HSK list of Mandarin words. The new HSK was implemented in 2010 and has six levels (w:HSK). Does an appendix exist for the new system?

Thanks Zumley (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I reckon we should handle all of the HSK information automatically, perhaps via {{zh-forms}}. Wyang (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ReduplicationEdit

See diff. Is "powwow" a reduplication? It was borrowed in its entirety from Massachusett pauwau, from PA *pawe·wa, i.e. no part was generated by duplication. (Compare the WT:ES discussion of todger dodger.) - -sche (discuss) 09:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

(Another user has undid the edit, which also seemed to me like the correct course of action. - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC))

Pronouncing diphthongs ending in /ɪ/Edit

I hope this is a decent place for this question. I'm from the Northwestern US where we all seem to pronounce the /ɪ/ in diphthongs as a tense vowel. For example, /bɔɪ/ has a definite "ee" sound at the end (not extremely tense, but distinct from /ɪ/ by itself). Is this simply a matter of dialect, or is it due to the way the tongue moves from /ɔ/ to /ɪ/ that gives it that sound? Both? Sorry for the noobishness of my question. I'm not a student, just a hobbyist. This may be beyond the scope of the Information desk, but I'm hoping someone will have some thoughts on the matter. It will help me to understand my IPA transcriptions as I go along. Thanks! BirdHopper (talk) 19:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, first, the English monophthong /ɪ/, in contrast to the offglide of the diphthongs /aɪ eɪ ɔɪ/, is not always (not in all dialects) the same as the official pronunciation of the symbol ɪ: it's not always near-close. (It also used to be near-close in Received Pronunciation, but no longer is. That pronunciation sounds decidedly old-fashioned to me.) It's definitely not near-close for me: I usually pronounce bit with a mid central vowel: [bət]. So English /ɪ/ isn't always literally [ɪ].
But the offglide of the /ɔɪ/ diphthong may approximate a near-close vowel. To me, a fully close vowel sounds rather non-native. But I would rather it just be transcribed as /ɔi/ (or /oi/), because it's not all that important which vowel the diphthong ends on: it's aiming for the high front position, more or less.
However, I think there's a tradition in which the "small capital" IPA letters ɪ ʊ are used for non-syllabic vowels. This is incorrect: i̯ u̯ should be used instead.
I'm not sure where the use of ɪ ʊ in English phonemic transcription originated, but it irritates me and I'd love to replace them with i̯ u̯. — Eru·tuon 19:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I much prefer sticking to the transcription system we've established here, as it's easy to read, it matches expectations, it's phonemically no less accurate (even if it doesn't perfectly match the phonetic realization in all accents), and it minimizes the need for multiple listings in multiple accents. It's bad enough that have to use RP /əʊ/ vs GenAm /oʊ/ for the goat vowel; I'd be very unhappy to see us introduce a wholly unnecessary distinction between RP /ɔɪ/ and GenAm /ɔi/ for the choice vowel. I have no objection to using the nonsyllabicity marker for all accents (i.e. /ɔɪ̯/), but neither to I feel it's really necessary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, the RP diphthongs should probably use /i̯/ as well. There isn't a difference in the offglides between RP and GA as far as I know. — Eru·tuon 21:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Erutuon. I think it's confusing. I've almost (or maybe even have, when I didn't know better) added "alternate" pronunciations with a higher vowel since it is clearly not /ɪ/ to my ears. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, everyone. I always like to hear both sides of an argument. The use of something like /ɔi̯/ makes a lot of sense from my perspective, but I can see the value in sticking with what is well-established as well. BirdHopper (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Question about headings formatEdit

So, the layout policy states that Pronunciation should come after Etymology, yet you have entries like red where it is reversed in the English section. This strikes me as the better way to do it, because most of the pages I've seen just repeat the same pronunciation for every etymology. It clutters up the page. In fact you can see an example of what I'm talking about in the very same entry red#Slovene. I am of the opinion Pronunciation should come before Etymology, unless there's a specific need otherwise. Or at least organize it in a fashion where the repetition isn't necessary. Pariah24 03:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes, I don't think our users are very bothered about the order of sections. Some leeway should be allowed. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I always put pronunciation before etymology, because then it's in the same order whether there is one etymology or several. If the different etymologies have different pronunciations (which has been very rare in the entries I edit, compared to the opposite) then pronunciation is nested under etymology and with a higher header level. —CodeCat 10:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Contribute to the evolution of WiktionnaryEdit

Hi everyone, I'm new at this website. I want to contribute with you, to Wiktionnary's evolution. I want to be an editor in this website too. So I count of you to help me. Thanks —This unsigned comment was added by Jjjoa (talkcontribs).

@Jjjoa: We're happy to have you. First off, a tip: end your posts with ~~~~. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Why can't Wonderfool vote?Edit

I know he's banned, but is there even really written policy here about bans? If "Wonderfool is a special case", why can't he vote? Don't you think his votes are valuable too, or is there a reason his votes are not valuable by default? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

In practice: he has a very long, strong (like Andrex) habit of doing things to mess up the project (a.k.a. trolling), so it would be hard to trust the votes as sincere. If you want a "policy" reason, then it's because he has been repeatedly banned for "abusing multiple accounts": this means (i) all bets are off (it's one of Wikimedia's no-nos) and (ii) you could never be sure that there weren't two Wonderfools taking part in the same vote, and therefore having more sway than they should. Equinox 04:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Didn't he nominate himself as an admin once? —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 04:53, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't want Wonderfool to go away, he is excellent, it is just crucially important that we don't give him official legitimacy. Or we could do, really, I'm easy. Equinox 04:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
If we give him any power, he will end up as admin again and delete the main page again. I think things are good as they are: he contributes, but has no power. --WikiTiki89 17:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I would liken WFs current status to a prison work-release program: as long as he behaves and is constructive, we let him do what he wants- but we can withdraw that at any time, and we always keep an eye on him, just in case. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
WF has been a fixture here for over 12 years. Twelve years ago, he was still in university. I remember because he was under the impression at that time that university exams were a mirror of real life, and since a grade of 80 on a test (80% correct answers) was average, he thought that would also apply here. That's where we began to clash, because on Wiktionary we strive for 100% correct, and 80% is unacceptable. Human maturity continues, we now believe, until about the age of 30, so WF is not the same guy he was twelve years ago. He's our most famous member and one of our earliest, and he seems to like us. Human development of maturity is tied to our prefrontal cortex, which is the last part of the brain to develop and organize itself fully. The prefrontal cortex is the seat of the majority of our w:executive functions. These functions help us to assess risk, think ahead, evaluate ourselves, set goals, and regulate our emotions. I really think we should give WF a break. I'd hate to lose him. —Stephen (Talk) 05:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Unsourced commentary in definition of -fulEdit

I'm new to Wiktionary's editing. I came across the page for -ful where this definition was given:

"1. Used to form adjectives from nouns. An adjective derived by this suffix implies a thorough and certain possession of the quality of that noun, not a metaphorical fullness with it by degree or quantity. One who is wakeful is fully awake, not frequently waking; what is changeful is uncertain, not transformed; what is harmful may do a single and a mild injury."

This distinction made by this commentary was not clear to me, so I checked established dictionaries for their definitions of -ful. They say things like:

Given that such a commentary is not actually in accord with authoritative dictionaries, should such a commentary (inserted by a currently inactive user about 10 years ago) be left untouched, or removed, or marked as requiring a source? What's Wiktionary's policy for such cases? Thanks for any comments.

--Creamyhorror (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree, it seems unnecessarily convoluted and is difficult to understand. —Stephen (Talk) 21:32, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the opinion. I've taken the liberty to replace the commentary with a more succinct and general definition. I do wonder what the policy on such cases of debatable definitions should be. Creamyhorror (talk) 11:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

pored versus pouredEdit

most spellings I have seen recently use the term pored as in: he pored over the documents to find the information he needed. But if I remember correctly in the past the proper use was poured. Has the proper use actually changed or does this just reflect a lack of editing?

You don't remember correctly. Pore has always been correct, with pour only used because so many people are unfamiliar with pore and use the only spelling they know. Only time will tell if pour will completely replace pore for this meaning, but, in the meanwhile, purists will definitely fault you for using pour. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Non-human languageEdit

Are there any non-human languages included on Wiktionary? An example would be Gorilla Sign Language, or possibly some form of dolphin language, or something. But I don't think any animal languages would be attestable. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

  • @PseudoSkull: I don't know why they would be un-attestable in principle: the findings on teaching non-human animals to use sign language are published. I think the problem is that with that example, there wouldn't be a community of signers. When it comes to whalesong or dolphin echoes, I simply don't think humans know what they mean. If there is some method of transcribing (e.g.) birdsong and writing it out then we could certainly include it in an appendix. The ISO code would be zxx. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Does "cat language" exist?Edit

I feel like when cats meow in different pitches, that can be sort of idiolectal. If a cat meows in a certain way, it means "Please give me food.", a type of loud and angry-sounding meow means "I'll hurt you if you don't get away!" or "I'm going to hurt you!", certain meows tell you "I don't like that thing that's bothering me." (whatever it is, such as "Stop snuggling me so close!"), but I still feel like the exact sound depends on the cat and it isn't universal.

Why don't people consider certain tones of meows to be "linguistics"? Yes, their meows are a lot simpler than our speech, simply because cats are only focused on a few things while we humans are focused on a lot. Cats want to lay around, hunt moving objects, eat food, beg for food, drink water, beg for water, sleep, piss, shit, whine about something bothering them, sharpen their claws, defining and enforcing their territory, etc., while we humans... You know all the millions of things humans can and have done. Anyway, you get the idea. Why aren't cat meows considered a language? PseudoSkull (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

w:Language#Unique_status_of_human_language DTLHS (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"No matter how eloquently a dog may bark, he cannot tell you that his parents were poor, but honest." —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Template for deleting accent marks?Edit

Hello, I want to ask if there is a template that would act the same as {{l-self}} but without creating a link, meaning that its input is a word with accent marks and output is the same word but without accent marks (i.e. the form that is displayed on the page title)?

Thank you. -Robotukas11 (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

{{#invoke:languages/templates|getByCode|(code)|makeEntryName|(text)}} should work. You can't use that directly in entries though, or else you have to subst it. —CodeCat 22:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
For instance, {{subst:#invoke:languages/templates|getByCode|grc|makeEntryName|Δῐονῡ́σῐᾰ}} → Διονύσια. If there's a pressing need for it, a shorter template name could be created. But I haven't encountered any situations where it's needed. — Eru·tuon 23:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! Can I use it directly in templates for tables for declension, for example? -Robotukas11 (talk) 13:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@Robotukas11: Why do you need to? {{l-self}} already strips diacritics. Or did you mean you want it to display without diacritics, even when |1= is given with them? Also, note that CodeCat's solution above will not put the display in bold face the way {{l-self}} will. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Confirmation when adding pages to watchlistEdit

I just discovered that I (annoyingly) have to click an "OK" button to confirm that I'm adding a page to my watchlist, whereas before it would just notify me via a popup, which I could easily ignore. Even more annoyingly, it now takes me to another page to tell me I've added it to my watchlist, without linking back to the entry, meaning I have to look up the page I was on again if I still want to edit/reference it. That's up to three page loads more than necessary. Is there a way to disable this feature or a place to complain about it? First world problems, I know, but surely this wasn't necessary? It's not like a page can't easily be removed from one's wtchlist if it was added by mistake.... Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I experienced this on two pages, then added another page to my watchlist, without that problem. I went back to the page I had first added to my watchlist (alloy) and removed it from my watchlist to see what would happen. It asked for confirmation, just like before. However, when I readded it, things were back to normal. Odd... Should I mention this in the Grease Pit, or is there something else going on here, like a buggy update? I noticed that the confirmation button for adding pages to my watchlist was in the exact same style as the recently enlarged "Publish changes" button. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks to me like the "new" behavior is the underlying default that's overlaid by a javascript function as the page is processed. In my experience it only happens when you click the icon before the page-load is far enough along. If I get the dialog, I backspace/back-arrow and wait a bit longer before clicking the icon. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The simple version of what Chuck Entz said is that this happens when JavaScript isn't working properly. --WikiTiki89 15:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Makes sense, thanks. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No Wiktionary without cookies or local storageEdit

Until a few days ago, I could use this site perfectly in Firefox's private browsing mode and with dom.storage turned off. Since yesterday, however, the Translation tables in entries like sedge (the English word "sedge"), for instance, and Declension tables in, say, Russian entries, do not have the "[show]" links, making them effectively unavailable to me unless I turn on the cookie and local storage options. While I have known this site to use them before (and seen both features mentioned in the site's policies), this has not been an issue until maybe yesterday. Were there any sudden change in the sites' policies or their enforcement that I have missed? —This unsigned comment was added by 2804:7f2:881:5779::1 (talk) at 14:38, 9 August 2017.

Well I have been working on javascript for past several days. Either I have missed something or it is a random js error that time after time occurs to all of us. Can you post the screen showing your browsers console? Dixtosa (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I'm the OP, but I had to create an account so I could upload the images. Here are the shots of the "sedge" entry and "voda" ("water" in Russian). I hope I this helps. —This unsigned comment was added by X8r0 (talkcontribs) at 17:43, 9 August 2017.
Fixed, but turning localstorage and cookies off is definitely not supported even by mediawiki's core scripts. P.S. pics helped thank you. Dixtosa (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Just checked and everything works fine again, thanks! As for the localstorage/cookies off thing, it's just my "default MO" for the net at large - i.e. when not in my email, wikis and somewhat safe sites in general, so it can be a bit of a hassle to toggle both features on while trying to translate stuff from "not so safe" sites on another tab. Anyway, glad to be of help and thanks again! X8r0 (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

E non è ancora finita!Edit

E non è ancora finita! - We're not done yet! ??
"è finita!" is third-person singular (female) present participle of finire
Should "E non è ancora finita!" rather be "and she has not finished yet" or "E non è ancora finito!" would be "And it's not over yet! '", I am asking. --Edward Steintain (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

  • The subject of the phrase (which has been elided) is cosa. This is feminine so finita is used instead of finito. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

ConsensusEdit

Is 50/50% "no consensus to delete" in a deletion discussion? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, separate question, if there are literally no comments on one deletion discussion for months on end, would it just fail RFD? PseudoSkull (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
1) Yes. Even 2/3 is, at best, borderline. 2) No. In rfd, the presumption is to keep unless there is consensus to delete, while in rfv, the presumption is that lack of response means no evidence that it should be kept, so it gets deleted. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
But an uncontested rfd means delete. —CodeCat 15:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, since the tacit advantage goes to the status quo. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Magic links tracking categoriesEdit

I have cleaned out most of these subcategories but some pages are protected. Will an admin please finish the job? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)